1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4978 OF 2009.
Rahul s/o Vijay Haul,
age 24 years, occup. Nil,
R/of Kond,Taluka and Dist.
Osmanabad. Petitioner
versus
1. The Union of India.
2. The Additional Deputy Inspector
General, Central Reserve Police
Force, Group Centre, CRPF,
Talegaon Dabhade,post Vishnupuri,
Taluka Maval, District : Pune.
3. The Presiding Officer, Central
Reserve Police Force Recruitment
Board, Centre at Ahmednagar,
Ahmednagar. Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Pawan Pawar, Advocate, holding for Shri
Vasant S, Yadav, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General
for Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------
Coram: S.B.Deshmukh and Shrihari P.Davare, JJ.
Judgment reserved on : 11th October, 2010
Judgment pronounced on : 19th October, 2010
JUDGMENT (Per: Shrihari P. Davare, J.)
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:30 ::: 202. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereby prayed for writ of mandamus or any other writ or directions to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to conduct the medical test of the petitioner and to issue appointment order to him for the post of Constable (G.D.) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 12.1.2007 issued by Respondent No.2. Respondent No. 1 herein is the Union of India and Respondent No.2 is the Additional Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre, CRPF, Talegaon Vishnupuri, Taluka Maval, District Pune, whereas Respondent Dabhade, post No.3 is the Presiding Officer, Central Reserve Police Force, Recruitment Board, Centre at Ahmadnagar, Ahmednagar.
03. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.1.2007 issued by Respondent No.2 for recruitment to the posts of Constable, G.D., petitioner herein applied therefor, from the open category. Accordingly, physical test of the petitioner was conducted on 19.3.2008 on Police Parade Ground, Ahmednagar, with Respondent No.3 and the petitioner successfully passed therein. Thereafter, petitioner was called for written test which was conducted on 2.4.2007 at Ahmednagar Center, and the petitioner passed the said test also. Accordingly, petitioner was called for oral interview which was scheduled on 18.4.2007 at 8 a.m.with Respondent No.3.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:30 ::: 304. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 issued letter dated 16.6.2007 (Exhibit F, page 18) to the petitioner, informing that he passed in the oral interview and, therefore, was called for medical test on 28.6.2007 at 8.30 a.m. at CRPF, Talegaon Dabhade, post Vishnupuri, Taluka Maval, District Pune. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is stated in the said letter that he was to report for the medical test at the time and date mentioned therein and the respondents that, in case he is declared fit by the medical authority, would give appointment order to the petitioner for the post of Constable (G.D.) on the same day.
Accordingly, petitioner reported at the place of Respondent No. 2 for medical test on 28.6.2007, but at that time, Respondent No.2 gave letter dated 21.6.2007 (Exhibit G, page 19) to him and informed that the medical test scheduled on 28.6.2007 is cancelled due to administrative reasons.
Thereafter, petitioner pursued the said matter with the respondents and in response, the respondents, by letter dated 11.1.2008, reiterated that the medical test scheduled on 28.6.2007 has been cancelled permanently, on administrative grounds.
05. Hence, the petitioner filed writ petition, being Writ Petition No.1716 of 2009 before this Court, but same ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:30 ::: 4 was withdrawn by him on 24.3.2009 with leave to approach the concerned Tribunal. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed Original Application No.245 of 2009 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, for the aforesaid prayers. However, the said Original Application came to be dismissed by the learned CAT by order dated 12.6.2009, holding that, in view of Section 2(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the said Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the said Original Application filed by the petitioner herein, since the Central Force is the Armed Force of the Union of India. However, the Reserve Police CAT granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. Accordingly, petitioner has filed the present petition before this court for the prayers as set out hereinabove.
06. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed affidavit-in-reply, which has been sworn in by one Randeep Datta, presently working as DIGP, Group Center, CRPF, Talegaon, Pune, and thereby denied the averments and contentions made by the petitioner in the present petition, unless admitted specifically. The respondents have submitted that the recruitment process was carried out in a very transparent manner and no discrimination or favoritism was shown to anybody. Accordingly, on the basis of marks obtained in the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:30 ::: 5 written test, the petitioner was called for oral interview and was kept on waiting list. It is also stated that the appointment orders had been issued to the eligible candidates, only on the basis of their merits. However, since the petitioner was not on merit list, his name was not considered for the post and, therefore, his name was kept on the waiting list. It is further stated that no candidates, including the petitioner, who were on the waiting list, had been appointed to the post of CT/GD by GC CRPF, Pune.
07. It is also stated in the said affidavit in reply that, although the GC CRPF had, initially by letter dated 16.6.2007, informed the petitioner to remain present for medical examination on 28.6.2007, but since all the recruitment formalities were to be completed by 30.6.2007 as per the schedule prescribed by the Deputy General, CRPF, and hence, candidates, including the petitioner, who were placed on the waiting list, had been informed by subsequent letter dated 21.6.2007 that the second medical examination that was to be held on 28.6.2007 was cancelled due to administrative reasons. Accordingly, it is submitted by the respondents that the present petition bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:30 ::: 608. We have perused the contents of the petition, its annexures, affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents and also considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, anxiously. At the outset, the main attack of the petitioner was on the letter dated 16.6.2007 (Exh.F) issued by Respondent No.2 to the petitioner, wherein it is mentioned:
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
(emphsis added)
09. On the basis of the said letter, learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the name of the petitioner was in the select list and, therefore, he deserves to be called for the medical test and consequently, he is required to be appointed to the post of Constable, G.D. in pursuance of the advertisement dated 12.1.2007, after declaring him fit in the said medical test.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:30 ::: 7
10. In the said context, learned counsel for the respondents rightly pointed out that although the name of the petitioner reflected in the select list, his name could not figure in the merit list and, therefore, his case was not considered for the aforesaid post and accordingly, his name was kept in the waiting list.Learned Counsel for the Respondents also invited our attention to the fact that as per the schedule prescribed by the Deputy General, CRPF, all the recruitment formalities were to be completed before 30.6.2007 and, therefore, all the candidates, who were on the waiting list, including the petitioner, were informed by letter dated 21.6.2007 that the second medical test scheduled on 28.6.2007 was cancelled due to administrative reasons. Learned Counsel for the respondents also pointed out that since the petitioner did not stand in the order of merit, he was not given appointment and his name was kept on the waiting list and no candidates,including the petitioner, who were on the waiting list, were appointed on the aforesaid post.
11. Considering the rival submissions, it is amply clear that although as per the letter dated 16.6.2007, petitioner's name was included in the select list, it could figure in the order of merits and, therefore, he was placed on the waiting list and he could not be given appointment.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:30 ::: 8Moreover, his medical examination scheduled on 28.6.2007 was also cancelled due to administrative reasons and due to policy decision, as mentioned hereinabove and hence, no interference therein is called for,in the writ jurisdiction.
12. Besides that, as pointed out by learned counsel for Respondents, it is also materia to note further contents of the letter dated 16.6.2007(Exh.F) which are to the effect that:
ig -----------------------------
-----------------------------
Accordingly, the letter dated 16.6.2007 is required to be read in its entirety and it could not be read in piece-meal manner, and the later contents of the said letter clarify the exact position that the said letter is not the guarantee of selection and appointment of the candidate for the aforesaid post.
13. In the circumstances, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, whereas the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents appear to be logical and reasonable and hence, we are inclined to accept the same. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the present petition bears no substance and same is devoid of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:30 ::: 9 any merits and hence, no interference is warranted under the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, in the present matter.
14. In the result, present petition being sans merits, stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged, accordingly.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) pnd/wp4978.09 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:30 :::